LCD vs Plasma: School me

[SnakeCharmer]

Pros, cons, burn in likelyhood, "shelf" life, recommended brands, brands to stay away from, anything you can think of.

XBox360 WILL be used 

Preferred size will be 32 - 37 inch, *POSSIBLY* 42 inch.

[Arrrgh]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=40

[Krakrok]

Plasmas use 1000 watts. LCDs use something like 250 watts.


Best Buy, Home Depot, and (I think) Sears have 32" LCDs @ 1366x768 for ~$500 tomorrow.


The one you really want is the Westinghouse 42" LCD 1920x1080. But the price is around $1400 :(

[Trippy]

Plasmas use 1000 watts. LCDs use something like 250 watts.

More like 400 watts for a 42" plasma like so. Plasmas do run hotter and draw more power than even front panel LCDs and many have fans to keep them cool.

[Cyrrex]

I have more or less the same model Trippy linked, so I can comment on it directly.  First, if you expect to be watching a good deal of ordinary SD (non-HD) programming, the Panasonics, in my opinion, have no peer.  When I was investigating my purchases, I would see a bunch of LCDs of varying caliber all showing the same program in SD (HD basically doesn't exist where I live)...and then I would see the Panny.  Sooooo much nicer.   Even the high end Pioneers couldn't compete.  For HD broadcasts, it seems to be more or less on par with a good quality LCD.  Couple of other points I'll make, and some popular myths about plasmas as well:

- Plasmas seem to do better with blacks (Pannys even more so).  LCDs seem to do bright scenes better.
- Without question, completely non-debatable:  Plasmas have a better viewing angle.  No matter what LCDs claim, simple geometry prevents them from achieving the same angle.
- LCDs always seem to have a non-shiny coating on the screen to eliminate reflections.  My Panasonice does not, and it is the sole complaint I have about it.
- Forget everything you ever heard about burn-in.   Mainstream plasma producers have several generations behind them, and this really is a non-issue.  Most experts say that you would have to deliberately attempt to damage your screen for burn-in to occur.
- Lifespan is measured as half-life...the point at which a screen has only half of its brightness remaining.  Most mainstream plasma producers will estimate something between 15 and 20 years until half-life, and that is when you are running it around 8 hours per day.  Total non-issue.
- My Panasonic does take something around 380 watts, so more than an LCD.  It does not seem hot in the least, and while there are 4 fans on the back, I've never once heard them.   It is VERY heavy...figure about double the weight of a same-sized LCD.
- Ninja Edit:  Forgot to mention response times.  With LCDs you have to make sure you get something with a really good response time (8ms or lower), otherwise you can get blurring or lag with any kind of fast-moving picture.  It isn't an issue with plasma in general, because it doesn't rely on diodes turning themselves on and off.

If you do happen to look at a Panasonic plasma (which I'd heartily recommend) make sure you fully understand what the model numbers mean and what you are getting for the significant extra expense.  If you get something in that 60x series (he linked the 600) and it is one of the HD versions you are getting EXACTLY THE SAME PANEL.  In other words, all of the performance and features are exactly the same within a given series, and you are paying out the ass for extra features that you may never use...like and extra built-in tuner, or PiP, or whatever.  The cheapo base model is absolutely more than adequate and cost loads less.

[Big Gulp]

Why not go rear projection?  Bigger picture, lower cost.

Also, seems to me that it's a more proven technology.  I don't trust the lifespan of plamas, and I'd worry about future dead pixels with the LCD.

[schild]

I'd go front projection before rear. Rear just looks ugly.

[Cyrrex]

Why not go rear projection?  Bigger picture, lower cost.

Also, seems to me that it's a more proven technology.  I don't trust the lifespan of plamas, and I'd worry about future dead pixels with the LCD.

I personally cannot understand the attraction for any type of projection technology...I mean, I like the way it looks and the value for the money - right up until I see it next to a good LCD or Plasma.  I think it looks like complete ass in comparison, but maybe I've just not seen the right set under the right conditions.

Edit: forgot to rebut your lifespan worry...it really is unfounded, unless you are buying from a cheap pretender.

[schild]

No, it sounds like you've seen it right.

[Big Gulp]

I'd go front projection before rear. Rear just looks ugly.

I'm sorry, you're right.  I was typing quickly, but yeah, my 56" Hitachi is front projection and I only paid $1200 for it a year ago.

[schild]

Rear is capable of producing the best picture on the market. But $8k+ tends to get you that.

[Big Gulp]

Edit: forgot to rebut your lifespan worry...it really is unfounded, unless you are buying from a cheap pretender.

What would concern me is the whole fan issue.  Considering how nasty PC fans get, the thought of one dying unbeknownst to me and my expensive-ass TV being permanently damaged would worry me.

[Cyrrex]

Fair enough - I don't recall ever hearing it as an issue, but who knows?  On the flipside, you have a similar argument for the bulbs in an LCD burning out, which may or may not be replacable (at a hideous expense).  In fairness, however, I expect most people replace their stuff before things like this tend to become issues.

[schild]

Honestly. I'd get an LCD. I love my LCD. I've always found Plasmas to be just...wlel, I don't like how images look on them. Really I'm a CRT or LCD kind of guy. I love the blacks on CRTs, but I love the brightness and colordepth of LCDs. And the refresh time on LCDs has gotten to the point where the vast majority of the arguments against them are just gone.

[Cyrrex]

Honestly. I'd get an LCD. I love my LCD. I've always found Plasmas to be just...wlel, I don't like how images look on them. Really I'm a CRT or LCD kind of guy. I love the blacks on CRTs, but I love the brightness and colordepth of LCDs. And the refresh time on LCDs has gotten to the point where the vast majority of the arguments against them are just gone.

The caveat being that you probably need to opt for a more costly mainstream brand (the pretenders are almost always using outdated technology), but yeah.  I think most are down to 6ms.

Generalizing that LCDs get the edge over Plasmas?  Fine.  But not over the Panasonic.  Nuh uh.  Dollar for dollar, it isn't even a close contest.

[schild]

Eh, I got a Vizio. It's pretty fantastic.

[Cyrrex]

Eh, I got a Vizio. It's pretty fantastic.

Eh, that doesn't tell me much (they make both)...also, what size?

[schild]

I got the 37" LCD.

[Cyrrex]

Not trying to spar with you, but I see that your 37" Vizio has a MSRP of around 1000 bucks, which is more or less the same as the 37" Panasonic Plasma...the Panny is probably a bit more (both sets can be had cheaper, I'm sure).  For that money, the Panasonic wins by several lengths.  To be fair though, Panasonic slashed prices by a shitload within the last year.

[Murgos]

I just impulse purchased a panasonic 61" DLP through my corporate discount program (a touch over 2k).  I really can't find much detail about the panasonic DLPs other than that maybe the Sony SXRD is better (and costlier).  Anyone got any more info?  I guess I got a touch of buyers remose and want someone to hold my hand :)

[Sky]

I've got a 61" samsung DLP and it's wicked hawk.

[Arrrgh]

I have the 61 inch Samsung DLP too. Great TV, great computer monitor, standard def looks fine.

I don't spend a great deal of time stand beside my TV pondering how thick it is, so I don't get all the thin snobbery.  They became popular in Japan because rooms there are small and people need all the space they can get. Here it's just fashion unless your TV room is actually tiny.

DLPs are the best bang for the buck in big HDTVs.

What size TV? Measure how far back you'll be, from screen to eyeballs, and take half that number of inches and that's about how big your HDTV screen should be. Round up to the next larger screen size if between. They look too big in the store, but once you get one home and get used to it you'll be glad.

[Sky]

Don't listen to that crap. I have a tiny apartment and 61" is perfect. Buy the biggest you can afford imo.

[Arrrgh]

The point of my crap was to help people avoid buying one that's too small.

But on to your crap. People sitting 3 feet away from a 61 are going to notice a lot of imperfections in the picture.

[Sky]

People with a 4' wide living room have problems bigger than the size of their hdtv.

[Krakrok]

More like 400 watts for a 42" plasma like so. Plasmas do run hotter and draw more power than even front panel LCDs and many have fans to keep them cool.

1000 must be old info then. The highest I could find was 660 watts for 61" plasmas.

[Miasma]

When I was buying mine it came down to more of a Plasma vs DLP decision.  I didn't like the LCD screens I saw, some people can notice the "screen door" effect and I'm one of them.  It also depends on how far away you will be from the TV, the closer to an LCD the more likely you are to see the ugly black grid.

When I started investigating I was dead set against plasma but slowly overcame my prejudice and wound up buying one, I love it.  I went with Samsung over the Panasonic that is more popular, I just thought it looked better.  You really have to go around and see the picture yourself to be sure.  My main concern was the burn-in but it hasn't been a problem, plus there are utilities you can use right from the remote to get rid of (most) burn-in if it does happen.  Plasmas are more prone to it at the beginning but after 100 or so hours it isn't as fragile.  I have noticed "ghosting" and when it first happened I was scared I had burned an image in, but it just went away.  I've played many hours of FFXII and the HP bars haven't burned in even though they are white and almost always on screen.

[Sky]

I would've gone with plasma if I had had another $7k ;) Then again, I remember something about funky rectangular pixels on a 1024x768 16:9 aspect set, which was the standard when I was shopping 3 years ago. Plasmas are very nice and vibrant.

[Sky]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=747311

[SnakeCharmer]

Welp.  After reading here, the avsforum (good site, btw), I bought the Panasonic TH-42PX60U today.  The Boss (read: wife) and I tossed around the idea of getting the 50 incher, but when all was said and done we could get two 42's for basically the price of one 50 incher, so we MAY go back and get another one, or wait until after the first of the year for a second one. 

Its now going through the burn in / break in method that was described on the avsforum site. 

Can't wait

[Sky]

Avsforum is where I researched my set, too. You'll need widescreengamingforum.com and their games list if you want to play pc games in widescreen :)

[Big Gulp]

Avsforum is where I researched my set, too. You'll need widescreengamingforum.com and their games list if you want to play pc games in widescreen :)

Figured with your fixation on HD/PC gaming you'd like to know this, Sky.  Apparently under MS's Games For Windows initiative in order for publishers to qualify for the little "Games For Windows" logo developers must support widescreen resolutions, or else no logo for them.  We should be seeing a lot more native widescreen PC games on the horizon.

[Strazos]

Don't encourage him.

[Sky]

Er...I'm not 'fixated', per se. I have an hdtv for a pc monitor. I imagine anyone would be interested in games that support their monitor's resolutions, eh?

But yeah, Games for Windows is sounding like good stuff. Still wary of Vista's lack of hardware sound acceleration, might even push me into a quad cpu purchase.

[Yegolev]

Many laptops have 16:9 ratio screens these days, including my wife's two most recent.  Just saying.  If somehow The Sims 2 didn't support widescreen, there would be many bloody walls in some EA building somewhere.